Farmington Consensus 2 2017 Tom Babor  

Farmington Consensus First drafted in 1997 by ISAJE founding journal editors at a planning meeting in Farmington, Connecticut, USA Endorsed by ISAJE founding journal editors and subsequently by all new members A set of principles that describe basic editorial policies for peer reviewed journals in the addiction field

ISAJE Farmington Consensus Audit 2015-16 Part of the ISAJE Quality Assurance responsibilities Approved unanimously by ISAJE general membership in 2013 Conducted initially by an internet review of all ISAJE member journals and a selected group of non-member journals Followed by a 2014-15 FC1 audit survey of ISAJE member journal editors and online open access journal editors. In 2016, it was expanded to include new items based on criteria for Predatory Publishers

Need for FC2: Quality Assurance Launch of 20+ addiction journals by Predatory Publishers with questionable peer review and business practices Some rogue journals indistinguishable from ISAJE member journals with minimal policies and procedures, suggesting the need for certification by an external organization Evolution of quality standards in scientific publishing ISAJE journal audits suggest that many journals fail to meet some of the FC1 criteria

Problems with Addiction Journals Affiliated with Predatory Publishers and Other Non-ISAJE, OA, online, for-profit journals Dramatic increase in past decade (N=20) Most did not respond to PAS3 Editors Survey Many (N=9) have no identifiable editor Some falsely list indexing/abstracting services Many list Google as one of their indexing/abstracting services

Criteria Pertaining to Peer Review (ISAJE Journals = 25)   Yes responses in %  Are reports and reviews managed by a peer review process?  100.0 Are the policies governing the peer review process publically declared?  80.0 Are referees told in written communication that access to papers for their comment is given in strict confidence?  84.0 Are referees told in written communication that confidentiality should not be broken by pre-publication statements on the content of the submission?  64.0 Are referees asked to declare to the editor if they have a conflict of interest in relation to the material reviewed & if in doubt, to consult the editor?  76.0

Authorship, yes responses in % Table 2 – Farmington Consensus Criteria Pertaining to Authorship (English journals 15; Non-English 5) Authorship, yes responses in %   Do the Instructions to Authors ask all listed authors to declare they have been personally and substantially involved in the work leading to the paper? 80.0% Are authors told they must declare that no significant part of submitted material has been published previously nor concurrently being considered by another journal? 92%

Funding Sources, yes responses in % Table 3 – Farmington Consensus Criteria Pertaining to Conflict of Interest/Funding Declarations (English journals 15; Non-English 5) Funding Sources, yes responses in %   Are authors asked to declare funding sources for the writing the article or the conduct of the research? 92.0 Are authors asked to declare if their relationship with any type of funding source might be fairly construed as exposing them to potential conflict of interest? 88.0% Where applicable, are authors asked to give assurance of ethical safeguards and approval by an Ethical Review Committee? 92.0%

Table 4 – Farmington Consensus Criteria Pertaining to Journal Policies (English journals 15; Non-English 5)   Does your journal have defined policies for attempted or actual duplicate publication, plagiarism, or scientific fraud? 48% Does journal require that sources of support from the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical or other relevant interests be published?\ 64% Does your journal publish declarations on sources of support received by the editorial staff? 48.0 % Does your journal recommend that authors follow specific guidelines in the preparation of their articles. If so, which ones are specified? 16%

ISAJE Farmington Consensus: Next Steps Revise new journal application procedures to conform to FC2 Notify journal editors of deficiencies in their policies and procedures and suggest ways to improve compliance as a condition of membership   Form an ISAJE Audit Subcommittee to review journal compliance with FC2 on a regular (say 5 year) schedule Certify editors when their journals are in complete compliance with Farmington Consensus Consider charging certification fees using publisher charges and a sliding scale for less resourced journals

Issues for Further Discussion ISAJE editors commentary on Predatory Publisher article? Need internal ISAJE policy for member journals regarding alternative metrics, use of JIF in marketing Education vs regulation?

Predatory Publishers and Addiction science ISAJE